Looking damn good! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
Printable View
Looking damn good! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
I hooked up my waterchiller to the chipset to see if it helped my clocks over a normal watercooled chipset. Controlled the temperature so it was 29c with 1.85v (9c over ambient) and yes, it helped get an extra 5FSB higher stable. Hitting the chips max FSB of 470 isn't so dificult now either.
http://www.weescott.co.uk/images/11_812.jpg
$1000.00? You guys are looking at the QX "Extreme units. Why not look into the mainstream Q9450 for sarting price of $316.00 or Q9300 for $266.00. The Q9300 looks to be replacing the Q6700, where as the E8400 is close to the E6850 in specs.
I'm waiting on the Q8450 @ 2.66GHz/2x6m L2/1333FSB on 45nm scheduled price so far of $316.00 San Jose, CA.
I want to be able to do 11x400 those chips can't do thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Nuckin_Futs
lol sorry I added some hard drives to my order so it's all filled up. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Warboy
proof would be the motherboard tab in that cpu-z screenshot ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sdumper
Well, I just tried 0903 and it is quite simply atrocious.
It is causing ntfs.sys errors, where-as previously everything was fine with 0901.
Is it forcing a higher PCI-E frequency or something? I've locked it to 100, but I remember reading that ntfs.sys errors are usually associated with the PCI-E frequencies being pushed too hard.
Hmm.. odd, the voltages seemed fine according to hardware monitor, so I'm not sure why 0903 is so unstable for me :(
maybe your settings under 0901 weren't fully stable. I'm using my settings from the 0901 bios in 0903 and I'm not having any trouble. My pci-e is at 100 as well. I hope your not using prime to judge stability because I did that and my system was completely unstable.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilhood
I wouldn't mind dishing out 300 for something like that but I would never spend 1000 on a processor .Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckin_Futs
Under my 0901 settings everything was working fine, no crashes or BSOD's during 24/7 operation, that includes Prime and general usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
When I try to flash my bios it doesn't recognize my usb flash drive . I hit Alt=F2 but its not there :( Whats the deal?
Hmm... ok the system is now stable, but only if I set SPD to Auto... I guess the new BIOS must be doing something completely different with the RAM.
I used to have 4-4-4-9-3-25-3(10)-3 and 7-3-5-4-5-4-5 working fine on 0901.
Reason for (10) is because Transaction Booster set to 0 changes tWR to 10 if it is set to 3 in the BIOS.
Everest seems to report Read Delay Phase Adjust as Neutral now, I don't think it was like that with the 0901 BIOS.
Guess I'll have to re-tweak the latencies bit by bit with this new BIOS, should be fun I guess *dies*
RE: "I want to be able to do 11x400 those chips can't do that"
why only aim for 400FSB. This is like stock for these X38's today. If talking bout the "QX", they were never really the better overclockers in the past, so I don't see why now, especially at a high multi like 11x. Why not try 6x or 7x for better FSB? The E8190 @ 2.66 is likely to be a god canidate for 500x8 on air for only $163.00. Why not see if the E8400 can go beyond 540FSB?
The entry level quad, Q9300, is gonna' have a 7.5x multi for 3.50GHz at 1333FSB. It will be interesting to see how the 0.5x works for overclocking
forget my previous question . Updated to 0903 :) woot woot !!! I'm thinking of going with water , this air stuff ain't cutting it .
Actually, just been playing around and 0903 is tons more fluid for some reason. There was definitely something not working with the previous BIOS' which we assumed did, and then they fixed it with 0903... probably to do with DRAM Static Read Control and the Transaction Booster causing big adjustments to the latencies.
So are a lot of people jumping to 0903? Im still on 505 I think...or something like that.
It seems to be ok, just watch how you set your latencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trice
W00T!!!!!!!!!! I'm excited guys. BIOS 0902 is a golden one for me. I can FINALLY boot over 415 :D
Now testing at 415x9
DRAM Static Read Control and Transaction booster are both perforamnce options and if used wrong in an OC, of corse you will get instability. If you have good RAM and can get high FSB, you dont need to use mobo performance boosters. Do it yourself in manual timings if need be. Static Read Control helps keep the DRAM frequency to NB strap at a smooth curv as FSB scales upwards, so of corse if we disable it on top of adding booster, we limit FSB overclock and invoke a risk of instability.
This mobo has done 515FSB since BIOS v0401 and every one since with my E6750. Even though in v0602, I could manually use strap and DRAM frequency, I gained nothing from setting it to 333 and DDR1000 for the same 1:1, so I just leave it to "AUTO" from now on unless I need or want to test an updevider to see if worth the gain.
All right I can't actually boot over 400 FSB if I use DDR2-1066 5-5-5-15 so I'm running DDR2-800 4-4-4-12. Doesn't bother me one bit because I am not a big superpi runner or anything.....the only bench I run (other than SANDRA stuff for testing) is 3dmark06.
I'm currently running 425*9 and I'm going to test that for stability.
Whew.....after 3.6 the VCore scales freaking exponentially......I can boot at the same VCore but I crash instantly in Prime95. I upped it to 1.456 (according to CPU-Z) and I'm running 420*9 *(425 not stable just yet)
I'll be able to run 3dmark so far....I think. Stable for a few minutes in Prime95.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilhood
I know you all like the deviders, but just for fun, give 1:1 a try and you should get 450/475/500x7 with a lil ease. I did, review my recent treads.Quote:
Originally Posted by binormalkilla
Q6600 to 500x7 and 8 in 1:1 DDR1000 @ 4-4-4-10. 3.5GHz as 500x7 felt nice on air w/ ASUS P5K Deluxe. I will try it on this mobo just for the sake of knowing if the trouble is in the mobo set up and report back soon I hope.
It was ok for older versions of OCCTPT in deed, no worryQuote:
Originally Posted by Grnfinger
Here are entry level quad cores:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckin_Futs
Core 2 Quad Q9300 2500 MHz 1333 MT/s 7.5x $266
Core 2 Quad Q9450 2667 MHz 1333 MT/s 8x $316
Core 2 Quad Q9550 2833 MHz 1333 MT/s 8.5x $530
To get only 3.6 GHz from the Q9300, you need 480 FSB.
And for the Q9550, a nice overclock would be 3.8 - 4.0 GHz, which needs 447 to 470 FSB
All these clocks can be reached with the actual Q6600 G0 with lower FSB
No motherboard can actually support in a FULLY STABLE way a +450 FSB on a quad core.
Unless X48 makes a huge improvement in overclocking the FSB for a quad core (yet to be proved), the Yorkfield will be a bad overclocker due to a low multiplier yielding to either a NB or a CPU FSB wall.
The OC story is changing: the CPU now has huge potential, but Intel needs to optimize the chipsets as they did with their CPUs. Unless they do it, the NB will be a new limit in OC
do you see anything wrong with my overclock ?
I set everything to auto except for the multiplier and the fsb
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/d...untitled-4.jpg
I know I could push it to 3.8 but I don't know how to mess with the ram , nb and voltage too :( I'm a total noob
Been reading through the last pages, but a bit unsure about what BIOS to go for, 0802 or 0903?
JH_man
i would say start with 0802 then see how much better 0903 is. 0903 is a noticeable improvement IMO.
heh, check out post 3522...Quote:
Originally Posted by devilhood